Posts Tagged ‘Executive Order’

“We have to listen to the concerns that working people have over the record pace of immigration and its impact on their jobs, wages, housing, schools, tax bills, and living conditions. These are valid concerns, expressed by decent and patriotic citizens from all backgrounds.

“We also have to be honest about the fact that not everyone who seeks to join our country will be able to successfully assimilate. It is our right as a sovereign nation to choose immigrants that we think are the likeliest to thrive and flourish here.” – Donald J. Trump, August 31, 2016

President Trump policy adviser Stephen Miller said Sunday that the White House is “considering and pursuing all options” to impose an immigration travel ban, now that Trump’s executive order on the issue has been halted in federal court.

Miller, an immigration hawk, told “Fox News Sunday” that new executive orders to protect Americans from “hostile” intruders are under consideration, as are potential legal challenges.

“We are contemplating new and additional actions … to ensure our immigration system is not a vehicle for terrorists,” said Miller, who was instrumental in crafting former Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions’ policies on illegal immigration. (Sessions is now the U.S. attorney general.)

A federal appeals court recently halted Trump’s Jan. 27 executive order to temporarily ban travel from seven mostly Muslim nations. And the Trump administration’s attempt last week to have the ban lifted was denied.

Miller on Sunday argued the appeal court has overstepped its authority, reasserting the president’s powers and expressing confidence that Trump will prevail in his promise to stop radical Islamic terrorists from entering the United States.

“The three judges made a broad, over-reaching statement,” Miller said. “The president’s powers here are beyond question. … Something good is going to come out of this. The powers of the president will be confirmed.”

In response to assertions that the executive orders were hastily crafted and executed, Miller argued they were drafted by “congressional experts” and reviewed by lawyers and top federal agency officials.

He also argued that the three executive orders on immigration signed last month essentially remain in effect and that they have already “profoundly improved our national security.”

Miller also said that Assistant to the President Steve Bannon, who is considered a driving force behind Trump’s immigration policies, had “no role” in the so-called roll out of the executive orders, which immediately created problems for travelers, including those with green cards, arriving at U.S. airports.

And, Guess what? Trump was right about how dangers those countries are, all along.

According to a report issued by the Center for Immigration Studies this past Saturday,

In June 2016 the Senate Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest, then chaired by new Attorney General Jeff Sessions, released a report on individuals convicted in terror cases since 9/11. Using open sources (because the Obama administration refused to provide government records), the report found that 380 out of 580 people convicted in terror cases since 9/11 were foreign-born. The report is no longer available on the Senate website, but a summary published by Fox News is available here.

The Center has obtained a copy of the information compiled by the subcommittee. The information compiled includes names of offenders, dates of conviction, terror group affiliation, federal criminal charges, sentence imposed, state of residence, and immigration history.

The Center has extracted information on 72 individuals named in the Senate report whose country of origin is one of the seven terror-associated countries included in the vetting executive order: Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. The Senate researchers were not able to obtain complete information on each convicted terrorist, so it is possible that more of the convicted terrorists are from these countries.

Gosh. A Sovereign Nation who gets to decide who enters their borders. What a novel idea.

Who would have thought of that?

Well…can you say “Founding Fathers”, boys and girls?”

I knew that you could.

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other – John Adams

Why should we allow people into our country who want to kill us?

That has to be the dumbest idea anyone has come up with since The Rosie O’ Donnell Variety Show (which lasted one episode).

I’m just sayin’.

What about other Presidents? How did they feel about “multi-culturalism”and allowing people in who do not like us?

In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person’s becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American…There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn’t an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag… We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language… and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.” – Theodore Roosevelt,

The Immigration Act of 1924 was passed because America had experienced an overwhelming flood of immigrants, which strained the resources of our nation.

That act allowed all of those immigrants to be assimilated into American Society and to actually become Americans, in thought, word, deed, and LOYALTY.

Later, Liberal President Jimmy Carter stopped Iranians from immigrating, because, just like the situation we faced today with Radical Islam, we were AT WAR.

In fact, Obama and his Administration were themselves actually restrictive in whom they allowed to immigrate to America., refusing the entry of Middle Eastern Christians, who were and are attempting to escape from certain death at the hands of Radical Islamists.

The only reason that the Democrat Elite are mad at Donald J. Trump’s Proposal to restrict the immigration of those who would kill us, is that he is attempting to thwart their plans to rapidly import thousands of un-vetted Muslims, and potential Democrat Voter into our country.

They could care less about the results of their avarice.

Like all Liberals, they remain oblivious of their own callous hypocrisy.

They should be grateful to President Trump.

The Democrats are trying to commit mass seppuku, with the rest of us included, and Trump is trying to take the knives out of their hands.

A newly leaked internal DHS memorandum produced for an off-the-record agency conclave reveals that the Obama administration is actively planning to circumvent a federal court injunction that suspended part of last November’s deferral-based amnesty initiative. The document, apparently prepared as follow-up from a DHS “Regulations Retreat” last summer, appears sure to re-ignite concerns in Congress as well as federal judges in the Fifth Circuit. The Administration has already been criticized from the bench for handing out work permits to hundreds of thousands of deferred action beneficiaries, in direct violation of a district court’s order. With the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals deciding any day now whether to deny the Administration’s request to reverse that injunction, this public leak has come at a critical juncture for U.S. enforcement policy.

Last June, four months after Texas federal judge Andrew Hanen’s order to freeze President’s DAPA and Expanded DACA programs—disclosure: the Immigration Reform Law Institute has filed briefs in these cases—DHS’s immigration policy makers apparently held a “Regulations Retreat” to discuss “different options” for “open market Employment Authorization Document (EAD) regulatory changes.” EAD is the statutory term for work permits. From a memo recording these discussions, we now know that the Obama DHS has, rather than pausing to allow the courts to assess the constitutionality of its enforcement nullification initiatives, been gearing up to roll out one or more of four plans drawn up at the meeting, each one designed to provide EADs to millions of nonimmigrants, including those lawfully present and visa overstayers, crippling the actual employment-based visa system on the federal statute-book.

The internal memo reveals four options of varying expansiveness, with option 1 providing EADs to “all individuals living in the United States”, including illegal aliens, visa-overstayers, and H-1B guest-workers, while option 4 provides EADs only to those on certain unexpired non-immigrant visas. Giving EADs to any of the covered individuals, however, is in direct violation of Congress’s Immigration & Nationality Act and works to dramatically subvert our carefully wrought visa system.

As mentioned, the first plan the memo discusses basically entails giving EADs to anyone physically present in the country who until now has been prohibited from getting one. A major positive to this option, the memo reads, is that it would “address the needs of some of the intended deferred action population.” Although DHS doesn’t say it expressly, included here would be those 4.3 million people covered by the president’s DAPA and Expanded DACA programs whose benefits were supposed to have been halted in the Hanen decision. On top of working around the Hanen injunction, this DHS plan would also dole out unrestricted EADs to those on temporary non-immigrant visas, such as H-1B-holders (their work authorizations being tied to their employers) and another 5 to 6 million illegal aliens thus far not covered by any of the President’s deferred action amnesty programs. By claiming absolute authority to grant work authorization to any alien, regardless of status, DHS is in effect claiming it can unilaterally de-couple the 1986 IRCA work authorization statutes from the main body of U.S. visa law. While DHS must still observe the statutory requirements for issuing visas, the emerging doctrine concedes, the administration now claims unprecedented discretionary power to permit anyone inside our borders to work.

The anonymous DHS policymakers state that a positive for this option is that it “could cover a greater number of individuals.” In a strikingly conclusory bit of bureaucratese, they state that because illegal aliens working in the country “have already had the US labor market tested” it has been “demonstrat[ed] that their future employment won’t adversely affect US workers.” The labor market, in other words, has already been stress-tested through decades of foreign-labor dumping and the American working-class, which disproportionately includes minorities, working mothers, the elderly, and students, is doing just fine. Apparently, the fact that 66 million Americans and legal aliens are currently unemployed or out of the job-market was not a discussion point at the DHS “Retreat.”

Bottom line: The memo foreshadows more tactical offensives in a giant administrative amnesty for all 12 million illegal aliens who’ve broken our immigration laws (and many other laws) that will emerge before the next inaugural in January 2016. According to the authors, one negative factor for granting EADs to illegal aliens, visa-overstayers, etc., is that they’ll still “face difficulties in pursuing permanent residence due to ineligibility or being subject to unlawful presence inadmissibility for which a waiver is required.” This is in reference to the reality that an EAD isn’t a green card and that eventually the EAD-beneficiaries are supposed to apply to ‘adjust their status,’ which cannot be done without showing evidence of lawful status. But this might change, they write. The DHS “macro-level policy goal”, we’re told, is to assist individuals to stay “until they are ready and able to become immigrants.” This would seem to say that DHS, the largest federal law enforcement agency in the nation, is banking on awarding those who’ve broken our laws and violated our national sovereignty.

Will the 26 plaintiff states that have challenged the President’s DAPA program bring this memo to the Fifth Circuit’s attention, before they issue their closely-awaited decision? If this document is indeed the cutting edge of Obama’s strategy for DHS to circumvent Judge Hanen’s injunction order, it would confirm the Administration’s bad faith and contempt both for the court and the law.

So, with 40% of America’s Workforce giving up on the American Dream and dropping out of our workforce, King Barack the First has once again decided that he will increase the competition for America’s jobs, by issuing a Royal Decree (Executive Order) granting amnesty to those who have illegally entered our Sovereign Nation, to the detriment of legal American citizens.

In 2013, brilliant American Economist and Political Pundit, Dr. Thomas Sowell, was interviewed by Laura Ingraham, on her syndicated radio program. Here is what he had to say about Amnesty and the Economy:

That’s incredible. I mean —first of all to an economist, it is incredible to speak about shortages without talking about prices, in this case wages…You know there, there have been so many predictions of shortages of so many occupations and the shortages don’t materialize. And why not? Because if there is a shortage, the wage rate goes up. That attracts in more people and lo and behold, the jobs are filled.

In agriculture, the farmers would obviously prefer to get workers who get low pay rather than workers they have to pay a higher wage. And as long as there are an unlimited supply of farm workers coming in from Mexico, they will never have to raise the wages very much. They say Americans won’t do these jobs. These are jobs Americans have done for generations, if not centuries. And it’s a time when millions of Americans are out of work, and are looking for any kind of work. And so this is utter nonsense.

…They constantly talk about immigrants in the abstract. You know, there are no such thing as abstract immigrants. There are immigrants from country a, b, c, d. They are radically different. People coming in from some countries almost never go on welfare. Immigrants coming in from other countries go on welfare to a great extent. If we’re going to have a rational immigration policy, then we have to be able to decide what people, what countries, what occupations — things like that, instead of rushing everything through.

The other main thing though is that if we don’t control the borders, we don’t have an immigration policy because regardless of what policy you put on paper, if people can just walk across the border when they darn well please, then your policy means nothing. The other thing that bothers me is the Republicans seem to think we will give — illegal immigrants citizenship if they do a, b or c. Democrats say x, y and z. I don’t know why we need promise anybody citizenship before we get control of the borders and have time to sit down and think and look at the facts, and then try to draw up some rational policy.

What makes the current influx of illegal immigrants exempt from the rules and regulations that every other generation of immigrants to this country had to abide by in order to become legal citizens of the greatest nation in the world? By being here illegally, they are not entitled to the same rights as natural-born or naturalized American citizens.

And, yet, even as I write this, they are in our hospitals, taking advantage of our charity and the finest health care system in the world, and driving our streets, with either forged drivers licenses or those obtained from states who have acquiesced and given them to these “undocumented workers”.

This is in no way a human rights issue. Freedom is God-given, and with freedom comes responsibility. With citizenship comes responsibility, like paying taxes and making your own way.

My concerns about this whole “Path to Citizenship” business, can be divided into three bullet points. (Hey, I used to be a VP of Marketing. What do you expect?)

1. Patriotism – Will these new “citizens” be willing to fly our flag above theirs? Will they be willing, if called upon, to serve in our Armed Forces, at home or abroad? Will they love this country, more than the one they left?

2. Loyalty – When these “new Americans” achieve the right to vote, are they all going to vote Democrat, so that they can receive more FREE STUFF? Is the Republican Party shooting themselves in both feet by pushing an outcome which will simply add new Democratic Voters? As I asked in the first point, will they honestly embrace our sovereign nation as their new home? Or, will they remain loyal to Mexico?

3. Immigration – Are we rewarding illegal behavior, while at the same time, insulting all of the brave souls who have come here legally, seeking a better life for themselves and their families?

I understand that people want a better life for themselves and their children. We are all immigrants in this land, except for American Indians, and they got here by crossing the Bering Straight. But there is a huge difference between immigrating here legally and sneaking in illegally, between assimilating into an existing culture, and insisting on replacing a country’s existing culture with that of the country you left.

I’m all for assisting anyone in becoming a legal citizen of the United States, if that is their wish. But, it must be done the right way, and they must accept responsibility for their illegal entry, show a willingness to learn our language, and embrace our American way of life, including respecting the American Flag.

So, let’s take this one step at a time. As Dr. Sowell said: Secure our borders. Enforce the anti-illegal immigration laws. And if the Federal Government won’t, the states, like Arizona, will have to pass their own laws. America became a great nation because it is a melting pot of American-born and legally-immigrated citizens with a shared allegiance, not a multi-cultural United Nations with everyone loyal to their home country.

As the diseases which the Mexican Munchkin Migration brought in with them have warned us, a wide-open Southern Border is as big a threat to the sovereignty of the United States as anything that our enemies can throw at us right now. All of OUR SERVANTS, up on Capitol HIll, need to quit playing political games. The safety of America is at stake . SECURE THE BORDER NOW.

The gunman who opened fire at an Oregon community college was forcing people to stand up and state their religion before he began blasting away at them, survivors said Thursday.

A woman who claimed to have a grandmother inside a writing class in Snyder Hall, where a portion the massacre unfolded, described the scene in a tweet.

“The shooter was lining people up and asking if they were Christian,” she wrote. “If they said yes, then they were shot in the head. If they said no, or didn’t answer, they were shot in the legs. My grandma just got to my house, and she was in the room. She wasn’t shot, but she is very upset.

Modal Trigger Students, staff and faculty are evacuated from Umpqua Community College.Photo: APThe Twitter user, @BodhiLooney, then recalled how her grandmother attempted to save the life of one of her close classmates.

Modal Trigger Two women wait outside Umpqua Community College campus after a shooting.Photo: AP“She tried to perform CPR on her friend, but it was too late,” the woman said. “I hope nothing like this ever happens again.”

Kortney Moore, an 18-year-old student at Umpqua Community College who was also in the room, told Oregon’s News Review that the shooter was indeed on the hunt for Christians.

Moments after hearing a bullet come flying through a window, she said the 20-year-old shooter made his way inside and targeted their teacher, pumping a single round into their head.

As the young man ordered people to the ground, Moore laid patiently with her classmates and waited, according to the News Review.

Once they all got down, she said the gunman began asking people to rise and say what their religion was. After they stood and gave their answer, he started shooting.

As the chaos continued, students began scrambling “like ants,” according to Brady Winder, a 23-year-old student from Portland who was in the room next door.

“People (were) screaming, ‘get out!,” he told NRToday, adding that he witnessed a girl frantically swimming across a nearby creek to escape.

Modal Trigger A woman is comforted as friends and family wait for students at the local fairgrounds after a shooting at Umpqua Community College.Photo: APHannah Miles, another Umpqua student, was also sitting in a class room next door and said she initially heard a pop that sounded like a yardstick slapping on a chalkboard when the shooting broke out.

She said that when her class heard the noise again, her teacher went to see if everything was all right. Minutes later, shots rang out repeatedly and they all fled, leaving their belongings behind.

Jared Norman, a nursing student, was locked down in the cafeteria with 50 other students when he heard gunfire — which prompted a mass panic, he said, with his voice trembling.

UCC Foundation Executive Director Dennis O’Neill was also on campus during the shooting and said him and other school officials were running around and securing classrooms as the gunman made his way through Snyder Hall.

“We locked our door and I went out to lock up the rest rooms and could hear four shots from the front of campus,” he recalled.

Christian Bringhurst, a teacher at nearby Camas Valley Elementary School, said his daughter Justine was also on campus at time of shooting and was safely evacuated.

“It’s awful. The uncertainty of what is going on is tough to deal with,’ he explained. “We have a dozen (Camas Valley) kids going to school out there. Trying to find out who is there and make sure everybody is OK. Our hearts going out to the victims.”

At around noon, officials sent out an automated phone call to parents at Roseburg School District, which referenced the shooting and assured the school was safe.

Sometime later, students’ cell phones were confiscated and they were escorted out of their buildings with their hands up as authorities patted them down and lined them up to be evacuated on buses, according to NRToday.

Around 200 people were estimated to be waiting at the Douglas County Fairgrounds to pick up the students. Red Cross grief counselors were also on hand to provide care to anyone who needed it.

Later, foxnews.com backed up the New York Post’s story, and, added new details…

The gunman in Thursday’s mass shooting at an Oregon community college specifically targeted Christians, three witnesses said, while online accounts linked to the shooter expressed disdain for organized religion.

Authorities say Christopher Harper Mercer killed at least nine people and wounded at least seven others at Umpqua Community College in Roseburg before he was killed in an exchange of gunfire with police.

Investigators have shed very little light publicly on Mercer’s possible motive for the shooting. However, reports indicated they were examining Mercer’s online presence very closely. One law enforcement official described Mercer to The New York Times as appearing to be “an angry young man who was very filled with hate.” Another official said investigators were poring over what he described as “hateful”writings by Mercer. Oregon’s top federal prosecutor told The Oregonian newspaper that authorities had heard rumors that the gunman had issued “some sort of race-related manifesto” before the shooting.

CNN had reported that three handguns and a “long gun” belonging to him were recovered from the scene.

Knowing this information about the killer being both Anti-Christian and Anti-white, President Barack Hussein Obama got his mug in front of the cameras, as soon as possible yesterday afternoon, and, after a brief acknowledgement of how horrible the Oregon Massacre was, immediately started a wild-eyed diatribe, in favor of Gun Control, threatening, like a child throwing a temper tantrum, that if Congress didn’t do what he wanted them to, that he would get his way, by Executive Order.

The laws in this country are written in Congress. That would be the Senate and the House. The president does not write laws. The president does not make law.

Well, he’s not supposed to.

Judges are not supposed to make laws. Judges are not supposed to create laws. That’s only supposed to happen in Congress. When Congress refuses to vote for a law, then it’s dead.

What the president is admitting here is that he can’t legally enact the gun laws that he and his minions would prefer.

So he is just going to do it unilaterally with Executive Orders.

Obama is trying to achieve his Marxist dream of taking away guns from law-abiding citizens through the issuing of Executive Orders.

However, this is not Russia, during the Bolshevik Revolution. This is America, where we have a System of Checks and Balances.

Please urge your Senator and Representative to put all the pressure they can on their Democratic colleagues to stop the president from turning us into an unarmed citizenry, vulnerable to enemies, foreign and domestic….and political, too.

Obama’s actions, as I have written before, remind me of a spoiled child who, when told “NO!” by his parents, launches into a screeching, whining temper tantrum.

Just like an unruly child, it’s time for Obama to be disciplined…by turning him into a lame duck for the remainder of his presidency.

Obama is not a leader. He is a petulant, pedantic Graduate Assistant, playing at being a tenured professor.

While Republican Presidential Hopeful and Professional Firebrand, Donald J. Trump, heads toward America’s Southern Border, to talk with the American Citizens under siege down there, President Barack Hussein Obama is making plans to circumvent our System of Checks and Balances, in order to create new Democrat Voters.

The Obama administration is moving forward with plans to expand a waiver program that will allow additional illegal aliens to remain in the country rather than apply for legal status from abroad.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued a proposed rule on Tuesday that would make changes to a waiver program created by President Barack Obama’s executive action on immigration in 2013. The action created a waiver that primarily allowed illegal immigrants with a U.S. citizen spouse or parent to stay in the country instead of having to leave the United States and be barred from returning for three or 10 years, if they proved their absence would create an “extreme hardship” for their spouse.

The new rule expands eligibility to a host of other categories of illegal immigrants beyond those with citizen spouses and parents.

“DHS proposes to expand the class of aliens who may be eligible for a provisional waiver beyond immediate relatives of U.S. citizens to aliens in all statutorily eligible immigrant visa categories,” the proposed rule stated. “Such aliens include family-sponsored immigrants, employment-based immigrants, certain special immigrants, and Diversity Visa program selectees, together with their derivative spouses and children.”

The waivers allow illegal immigrants to stay in the country while they await visas, and avoid a penalty under U.S. law that bars persons who entered the country illegally from returning for at least three years.

An illegal immigrant who lives in the country for less than a year and then leaves is barred from reentering the United States for three years. Any time spent illegally in the United States over one year results in the illegal immigrant being inadmissible for 10 years. The waiver program allowed individuals to remain in the country and avoid these penalties.

“It’s a very bad policy,” said Jessica Vaughan, director of policy studies at the Center for Immigration Studies. “It makes it possible for illegal aliens to avoid the consequences established by Congress to deter people from settling here illegally and then laundering their status by adjusting to a green card.”

Vaughan, who has been following the issue for over two years, said the changes to the waiver program would increase fraud.

“It is a slap in the face to the many legal immigrants who abide by the law, follow the process, and wait their turn,” she said. “In addition, it will increase the likelihood of fraud in the marriage categories, which produce tens of thousands of new green cards each year.”

“Green cards are the golden ticket. Once you get a green cards you get welfare, you get tax credits, you get entitlements,” said a GOP Senate aide. “The U.S. hands out one million green cards every year, and these documents are bankrupting the country.”

DHS said it is proposing the rule based on its “broad authority” under the Homeland Security Act of 2002.

The rule would also broaden the category of those whom an illegal alien can claim their absence from the United States would create an “extreme hardship.” Previously, the waiver only could be given if the illegal immigrant has a spouse or parent who is an American citizen.

“DHS also proposes to expand who may be considered a qualifying relative for purposes of the extreme hardship determination to include [legal permanent resident] LPR spouses and parents,” the proposed rule said.

The agency said the rule is intended to “prioritize the family reunification of immediate relatives of U.S. citizens over other categories of aliens.”

“The president should not be issuing executive actions that serve only to expedite the legalization process for those who have ignored our laws,” said Vaughan. “This legalization gimmick is undermining the integrity of our legal immigration system, and Congress should take steps to block it.”

The public will have 60 days to comment on the proposal.

So, with 40% of America’s Workforce giving up on the American Dream and dropping out of our workforce, King Barack the First has once again decided that he will increase the competition for America’s jobs, by issuing a Royal Decree (Executive Order) granting amnesty to those who have illegally entered our Sovereign Nation, to the detriment of legal American citizens.

In 2013, brilliant American Economist and Political Pundit, Dr. Thomas Sowell, was interviewed by Laura Ingraham, on her syndicated radio program. Here is what he had to say about Amnesty and the Economy:

That’s incredible. I mean —first of all to an economist, it is incredible to speak about shortages without talking about prices, in this case wages…You know there, there have been so many predictions of shortages of so many occupations and the shortages don’t materialize. And why not? Because if there is a shortage, the wage rate goes up. That attracts in more people and lo and behold, the jobs are filled.

In agriculture, the farmers would obviously prefer to get workers who get low pay rather than workers they have to pay a higher wage. And as long as there are an unlimited supply of farm workers coming in from Mexico, they will never have to raise the wages very much. They say Americans won’t do these jobs. These are jobs Americans have done for generations, if not centuries. And it’s a time when millions of Americans are out of work, and are looking for any kind of work. And so this is utter nonsense.

…They constantly talk about immigrants in the abstract. You know, there are no such thing as abstract immigrants. There are immigrants from country a, b, c, d. They are radically different. People coming in from some countries almost never go on welfare. Immigrants coming in from other countries go on welfare to a great extent. If we’re going to have a rational immigration policy, then we have to be able to decide what people, what countries, what occupations — things like that, instead of rushing everything through.

The other main thing though is that if we don’t control the borders, we don’t have an immigration policy because regardless of what policy you put on paper, if people can just walk across the border when they darn well please, then your policy means nothing. The other thing that bothers me is the Republicans seem to think we will give — illegal immigrants citizenship if they do a, b or c. Democrats say x, y and z. I don’t know why we need promise anybody citizenship before we get control of the borders and have time to sit down and think and look at the facts, and then try to draw up some rational policy.

In 1903, Jacob A. Riis, a reporter who was born in Denmark in 1849 and immigrated to America at the age of 21, wrote the following about the immigrants who landed at Ellis Island,

The railroad ferries come and take their daily host straight from Ellis Island to the train, ticketed now with the name of the route that is to deliver them at their new homes, West and East. And the Battery boat comes every hour for its share. Then the many-hued procession-the women are hooded, one and all, in their gayety shawls for the entry-is led down on a long pathway divided in the middle by a wire screen, form behind which come shrieks of recognition from fathers, brothers, uncles, and aunts that are gathered there in the holiday togs of Mulberry or Division Street. The contrast is sharp-an artist would say all in favor of the newcomers. But they would be the last to agree with him. In another week the rainbow colors will have been laid aside, and the landscape will be poorer for it. On the boat they meet their friends, and the long journey is over, the new life begun.Those who have no friends run the gauntlet of the boarding-house runners, and take their chances with the new freedom, unless the missionary or “the society” of their people holds out a helping hand. For at the barge-office gate Uncle Sam lets go. Through it they must walk alone.

I know that you have heard America referred to as a Melting Pot.

That phrase was actually made popular in the 1908 play, “The Melting Pot,” a stage play by Israel Zangwill that encouraged assimilation into our nation’s culture by the immigrants of the time.

Zangwill was the London-born son of Russian Jewish immigrants. His play made its debut in Washington in 1908 and played in New York for four months the next year. The main character is David Quixano, a Jewish immigrant, orphaned by a pogram, which is a massacre of Jews. Quizano lives with his uncle on Staten Island and becomes smitten with the daughter of a Russian nobleman.

In the end, the good guy(David) gets the girl, which inspires him to shout from the rooftop of a Lower East Side settlement house that “America is God’s crucible” and to proclaim: “What is the glory of Rome and Jerusalem where all nations and races come to worship and look back, compared with the glory of America, where all races and nations come to labor and look forward!”

What Petulant President Pantywaist and his sycophantic Liberal supporters in Washington, the Main Stream Media, and elsewhere fail to realize, is that you can’t buy loyalty to a nation.

The British found that out with their hired German Mercenaries, the Hessians, during the Revolutionary War.

In their self-absorbed Political Greed, America’s professional politicians are setting the stage for the possible fall of our nation.

Legal Immigrants earned their citizenship. They showed that they were willing to become a part of the Great American Melting Pot (from the Schoolhouse Rock video of the same name).

Illegal Immigrants do not respect the laws of our land, to begin with. Why would that change, if they were given the rights of citizenship?

And, what about the 40% of America’s Workforce, who have dropped out due to frustration, depression, and aggravation?

How about taking care of those whom you are supposed to be serving, first, Mr. President?

They say the only two things that are certain in life are death and taxes. President Barack Obama wants to add one more: voting.

Obama floated the idea of mandatory voting in the U.S. while speaking to a civic group in Cleveland on Wednesday. Asked about the influence of money in U.S. elections, Obama digressed into the topic of voting rights and said the U.S. should be making it easier for people to vote.

Just ask Australia, where citizens have no choice but to vote, the president said.

“If everybody voted, then it would completely change the political map in this country,” Obama said, calling it “potentially transformative.” Not only that, Obama said, but universal voting would “counteract money more than anything.”

Disproportionately, Americans who skip the polls on Election Day are younger, lower-income and more likely to be immigrants or minorities, Obama said. “There’s a reason why some folks try to keep them away from the polls,” he said in a veiled reference to voter identification laws in a number of states.

Less than 37 percent of eligible voters cast ballots in the 2014 midterms, according to the United States Election Project. And a Pew Research Center study found that those avoiding the polls in 2014 tended to be younger, poorer, less educated and more racially diverse.

Back in September of 2013, economist.com posted an article titled, “Where is it Compulsory to Vote?”. In that article, you will find the following summary…

…in some countries skipping the polling booth can land you in trouble. In Australia non-voters can expect a letter from the electoral commission demanding an explanation for their absenteeism. If they don’t have a good excuse they are fined A$20 ($19). If they fail to pay they can end up in court, where the fine is upped to A$170, plus court fees. Refuse to cough up and they face jail. A survey by Britain’s electoral commission in 2006 categorised three other countries as having “very strict” compulsory-voting regimes. In Brazil and Peru, non-voters are banned from carrying out various administrative transactions (Brazilians cannot apply for passports or sit professional exams, in theory at least), as well as facing small fines. In Singapore, non-voters have their names removed from the electoral roll—which many of them are presumably not too worried by. A host of other countries have varyingly strict rules on voting, along with some curious get-outs. Illiterate people are excused in Brazil and Ecuador; soldiers are excluded in Brazil, the Dominican Republic, Guatemala and Lebanon. The elderly are off the hook in several countries. And in Bolivia, where voting is notionally compulsory, married people are enfranchised from the age of 18, whereas singletons must wait until they are 21.

Proponents of mandatory voting argue that democracy is too important to be optional. Others say that compulsory self-determination is something of a contradiction in terms. There are economic arguments on both sides: compulsory voting saves money in campaigns, because parties otherwise splurge vast amounts on “getting out the vote”. On the other hand, enforcing the law clogs up courts and keeps bureaucrats busy, at substantial cost. The electoral consequences of mandatory voting are disputed. Some wonder if introducing compulsory voting in America would favour the Democrats, for instance, just as making it harder to vote seems to make life easier for Republicans. Others suspect that more votes would accrue to the party in power—or simply the candidate whose name appears at the top of the ballot.

And, there lies the rub.

Obama was most definitely floating a trial balloon when he suggested the fascist idea of compulsory voting.

By wrapping the American Flag around this freedom-constricting notion, Obama was covering up the fact that he mistakenly believes that he could fool Americans into backing this current scheme to grab some more voters for the Democratic Party.

Of course, this is nothing new for the Democrats.

I remember, as a college kid of 21, back in 1980, feeling my jaw drop as I read about Rep. Harold Ford, Sr.’s (D, Memphis) Campaign Staff actually busing people to the polls. And, not just people living in the district, additionally, Ford would send the busses to Nursing Homes as well, with staffers to help the “poor and unfortunate” to pull the right lever in the voting booth.

If Obama were to sign an Executive Order and compulsory voting were to become the law of the land, you would see shenanigans like those I just mentioned, from coast to coast, and in every tiny hamlet in between.

After the nursing homes , the Democratic Buses would probably stop at the cemeteries.

Our Founding Fathers fought hard to give us the gift of Liberty.

However, the thing about Liberty is that it is Freedom with Responsibility…Responsibility to obey our nation’s laws, Responsibility to take care of our families, Responsibility to protect our Liberty, and the Responsibility to fulfill our Civic Duty and vote.

I have been voting since 1980, when I used my first vote to help Ronald Wilson Reagan win the Presidency of the United States.

President Obama has issued a form of executive action known as the presidential memorandum more often than any other president in history — using it to take unilateral action even as he has signed fewer executive orders.

When these two forms of directives are taken together, Obama is on track to take more high-level executive actions than any president since Harry Truman battled the “Do Nothing Congress” almost seven decades ago, according to a USA TODAY review of presidential documents.

Obama has issued executive orders to give federal employees the day after Christmas off, to impose economic sanctions and to determine how national secrets are classified. He’s used presidential memoranda to make policy on gun control, immigration and labor regulations. Tuesday, he used a memorandum to declare Bristol Bay, Alaska, off-limits to oil and gas exploration.

Like executive orders, presidential memoranda don’t require action by Congress. They have the same force of law as executive orders and often have consequences just as far-reaching. And some of the most significant actions of the Obama presidency have come not by executive order but by presidential memoranda.

Obama has made prolific use of memoranda despite his own claims that he’s used his executive power less than other presidents. “The truth is, even with all the actions I’ve taken this year, I’m issuing executive orders at the lowest rate in more than 100 years,” Obama said in a speech in Austin last July. “So it’s not clear how it is that Republicans didn’t seem to mind when President Bush took more executive actions than I did.”

Obama has issued 195 executive orders as of Tuesday. Published alongside them in the Federal Register are 198 presidential memoranda — all of which carry the same legal force as executive orders.

He’s already signed 33% more presidential memoranda in less than six years than Bush did in eight. He’s also issued 45% more than the last Democratic president, Bill Clinton, who assertively used memoranda to signal what kinds of regulations he wanted federal agencies to adopt.

Obama is not the first president to use memoranda to accomplish policy aims. But at this point in his presidency, he’s the first to use them more often than executive orders.

“There’s been a lot of discussion about executive orders in his presidency, and of course by sheer numbers he’s had fewer than other presidents. So the White House and its defenders can say, ‘He can’t be abusing his executive authority; he’s hardly using any orders,” said Andrew Rudalevige, a presidency scholar at Bowdoin College. “But if you look at these other vehicles, he has been aggressive in his use of executive power.”

Evidently, OUR Constitution doesn’t matter a hill of beans to the Manchurian President. Ladies and gentlemen, the Great One, Mark Levin, is right: We have an imperial president:

I’m not into imperial presidents who act imperial and speak imperial and Obama forgets there’s a Constitution. Yes, he keeps telling us he won reelection. Congratulations, but guess what? The Constitution wasn’t up for election, it’s not up for a referendum. He has to comply with it, too.

He was sent back to Washington, but he’s got a strict list of rules that he has to follow as president. When he gets up there and starts saying, if Congress doesn’t do this, I’m going to do this unilaterally, it violates separation of power a lot of the times.

…What the hell is this? He was elected president. Congratulations. This guy makes Richard Nixon look like a man who followed the law all the time. I think we have an imperial president, he sounds imperial, he’s arrogant as hell and I’m furious about this and I’m going to tell you why. We are a magnificent country. We don’t need to be turned upside down. We don’t need to run from crisis to crisis to crisis. He’s bankrupting this country.

On his nationally syndicated radio program, back in January of this year, the Godfather of Conservative Talk Radio, Maha Rushie, himself, spoke about Obama’s “Independence Proclamation”:

Executive orders to make things fair. He can do executive orders and executive actions to get rid of the unfairness. He’s gonna make this lousy country finally fair! … He’s got these Republicans standing in his way. “Okay, I’m gonna just start writing executive orders. “To hell with it! I’m gonna finally make everything fair.” Now, he might have a pen, and he might have a phone, but what he does not have is the constitutional power to run this country like a dictator…

…He’s a constitutional lawyer, and he should know better. But he doesn’t care. He doesn’t care about the Constitution. The Constitution is an impediment to Obama. The Constitution is not something to be respected — and it’s not just Obama, by the way. It’s to the vast majority of the intellectual, leftist elite. They really detest the Constitution, because it thwarts them. Some of you may not know this, but the United States Constitution was written to limit government power.

The US Constitution’s first 10 amendments specifically limit government’s power. Well, that’s not cool if you’re Obama or any of today’s liberal Democrats. That, to you, is shackles. They call that “a charter of negative liberties.” Stop and think of that. A document founded in the belief, the proclamation, the declaration, the primacy of individual liberty and freedom is considered “a charter of negative liberties.”

It’s something that gives the people individual primacy and freedom — and, to the left, that’s negative — and the reason they call it “a charter of negative liberties” is because it limits government. They don’t like that, and that’s what Obama was talking about, “You know, the heck with it!”

…Violating the Constitution — there’s no question about this, folks. It’s just a matter of whether people in power and who have the authority to do so want to stop it. Because if nobody’s gonna stop Obama, he’s gonna be able to keep doing it.

President Obama has been on a mission during his presidency to circumvent the system of checks and balances which Our Founding Fathers have so wisely put in place, in order to prevent exactly what our imperial president is attempting to do.

Therefore, one can say that the president’s actions, concerning the issuance of “Memoranda”, are no less than tyrannical.

What did our Founding Fathers have to say about Tyranny?

The liberties of our country, the freedoms of our civil Constitution are worth defending at all hazards; it is our duty to defend them against all attacks. We have received them as a fair inheritance from our worthy ancestors. They purchased them for us with toil and danger and expense of treasure and blood. It will bring a mark of everlasting infamy on the present generation – enlightened as it is – if we should suffer them to be wrested from us by violence without a struggle, or to be cheated out of them by the artifices of designing men. –Samuel Adams

Single acts of tyranny may be ascribed to the accidental opinion of a day; but a series of oppressions, begun at a distinguished period and pursued unalterably through every change of ministers, too plainly prove a deliberate, systematic plan of reducing [a people] to slavery.- Thomas Jefferson

If you haven’t noticed, there has been an explosion of Conservative Bloggers during the Obama Administration. There is a reason for this.

Just as Benjamin Franklin (Poor Richard’s Almanac) and Thomas Paine (Common Sense) used their biting wit, as communicated by the Written Word, to fight tyranny in their time, so are “Citizen Bloggers” using the power of the Written Word once again, this time magnified in scope a thousand-fold by the power of the Internet, to fight an Imperious President.

Because…

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. – Edmund Burke

Back in the 1990s, I worked in the Education/Media Services Department, of one of the largest hospitals in America. The department was overseen by an older lady, who had an educational doctorate. This lady was full of energy, was very sweet, and very smart. However, she became notorious for what my manager labeled “crisis management”. Meaning, that when the president of the hospital wanted her to undertake a major project and wanted a report of her plans before she began, she would wait until the last cotton picking minute to get her act together and her report as well, sending the whole department into a frenzy which was reminiscent of the chase scene at the end of The Benny Hill Show.

I remembered that story, as I was trying to get a handle on United States President Barack Hussein Obama’s management style. Obama, as we all know, has a management style that is reactive, instead of being proactive. His management of our nation’s resources leaves a lot to be desired. And, I am being very kind when I say that.

Perhaps there is a purpose in Obama’s slapdash method of handling his job duties.

We have all come to recognize that Obama does not handle criticism of his job performance very well. Let’s face it, Obama’s ego is as big as the great outdoors. And, of course, when you are a super genius such as Barack Hussein Obama, you don’t have to listen to peons like you and me, anyway.

The thread that ties together the story which I began today’s blog with and Barack Hussein Obama’s management style, is the fact that when you practice crisis management, more times than not, you do it in the fervent hope that by doing such, no one can question your management style until everything is said and done. In other words, until it is too late to do anything about it.

Obama, while practicing this management style, hopes to circumvent the Constitution of the United States, by portraying the “plight” of people who have trespassed into our country as an “emergency humanitarian situation”. If news had not leaked out last week that Obama was going to grant Amnesty by Executive Order, he probably would have just come on television this Friday and explained his whole brilliant plan to all of us. And, by the time we finished watching his pronouncement slack-jawed, in his mind anyway, it would have been too late for us to do anything about it.

When you have a crisis manager such as Obama, it is a very natural reaction for them not to take criticism well, and for them to be surprised when somebody bucks them on what they believe is a brilliant idea and a brilliant game plan.

Hence, the Presidential Temper Tantrums that Scooter throws every time somebody tells him “NO”.

However, in our present situation in America, I believe that this may be more than the simple case of a crisis manager’s plans being thwarted.

When you have an orderly structure already in place, such as our System of Checks and Balances, which was set up to provide a mechanism which protects our sovereign nation from usurpation of our Constitution, and provided for us in the founding of this country by our forefathers, it is not easily circumvented.

It hit me yesterday, after I wrote a blog about Obama’ s meeting with the protest leaders who are presently chomping at the bit to write it in Ferguson Missouri over the shooting of the young thug, Michael Brown.

What Obama was running for president, he promised to “radically change” the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave into a vision which he had for America. I believe that not only this upcoming amnesty on Friday, but the racial upheaval in Ferguson and across the country, which Obama’s irresponsible use of the rhetoric of race and class warfare has directly caused, as well, are both political tools, which he wishes to use as a Vanguard for his own revolution, whose sole purpose is to usher in the “radical change” which he spoke of all those years ago.

Just as was the case in the Russian Revolution, any “Democratic Socialist” nation we see around our Modern World, went through a course-altering revolution, whether through a violent overthrow of the Government or through a “radical change” in the political ideology of their nation and the way that their populace voted in the subsequent election.

I firmly believe that the mission of Barack Hussein Obama, from the moment he became President of United States to this very day, has been exactly what he said it was during his first presidential campaign: to “radically change” our nation into something that every patriotic American will no longer recognize.

With citizenship and voting rights granted to illegal aliens and with Obama’s covert and overt support of these perpetually-grieved protesters, fueled by racial animus, Obama has created his own version of Lenin’s Bolsheviks.

That is why the election earlier this month was so very important. No matter what the puppets of the Obama Administration, the Main Street Media proclaims, the reason that Americans elected Republicans to both Houses of Congress was not to work with Barack Hussein Obama, but to oppose him at every turn.

It’s time for another showdown in the country’s capital. Republicans won the Senate and full control of Congress in the midterm elections. The president is reportedly about to counter with executive action on immigration reform, though nobody knows how far he’ll go.

White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest told Fusion’s Jorge Ramos that the White House hasn’t made a final decision, but the president is ready to make good on his promise to act on behalf of the nation’s undocumented immigrants in the absence of a new law before the end of the year.

“The president is disappointed that this legislative solution won’t be achieved, but the president is looking forward to taking executive action on his own, to solve as many of these problems as he can,” Earnest said.

Few things will rile Republicans more than unilateral White House action on such a contentious issue, especially coming off of their midterm gains. Earnest acknowledged the White House’s displeasure with the election results while describing them as a call for more movement in Washington.

“[Voters] want their elected representatives in Washington, D.C. to get some results, and we haven’t seen a lot of results over the last two years in the United States Congress in particular,” Earnest said.

It’s a fine line given the departing Democratic Senate majority, but the White House wants to cast Republicans – who have internal splits on this issue – as the main reason for legislative delays and justify executive action now that they’ve won more power. Leading Republicans caution that such a confrontation would be playing with fire.

“If we get sidetracked with old ideological fights and holding each other accountable for long-held differences, we’re not going to make much progress,” Earnest said when asked about Senator Mitch McConnell’s warning that immigration executive action is “like waving a red flag in front of a bull.”

Republicans could respond with several tactics. The attorney general oversees the legal argument Obama will make for his authority to take action under current immigration law, and Republicans could block the Senate confirmation of Loretta Lynch, who Obama tapped to replace Attorney General Eric Holder. The could also withhold funding, though another shutdown looks unlikely, or even supersede Obama with a new immigration bill, which the president has always said he favors over acting on his own.

The White House is feeling heat from the left on the details of their executive action plan, even though they’re not yet known. Activists and immigrant groups shared a recent New York Times editorial’s fear that the plan won’t go far enough in the face of sure opposition. They argue that if the fight’s inevitable, it might as well be over a strong position.

“So why not be unapologetic, go bold, and really protect millions of our families that are waiting for the president to act,” said Cristina Jimenez, the managing director of the youth immigration activist group United We Dream, in an interview with Jorge Ramos.

A potential plan allowing upwards of 5 million undocumented immigrants to remain in the U.S. could be cut to a couple million or less as the president focuses on smaller slices of the nation’s 11 million undocumented.

The late Congresswoman from Texas, Barbara Jordan, would not be proud of her fellow Democrat, President Barack Hussein Obama.

The last bipartisan U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform wrangled with the topic of Illegal Immigration for six years. President Clinton appointed former congresswoman and Democratic icon Barbara Jordan as its chair. Jordan came from humble beginnings to become a lawyer and the first Southern black woman elected to the House of Representatives. Rep. Jordan was a leader in the Civil Rights Movement, a Professor of Ethics, a recipient of the Presidential Medal of Freedom, and a world-class orator (two of her speeches are considered among the greatest of the 20th century). Her appointment gave the commission instant credibility. According to Jordan, she believed her responsibility as the head of the commission was to restore credibility to the U.S. Immigration System. On the issue of Illegal Immigration, Jordan was very clear and succinct:

Unlawful Immigration is unacceptable. Those who should not be here will be required to leave.

Let’s pretend I broke into your house. When you discover me there, you insist I leave. But I say, “I’ve made all the beds, washed the dishes, did the laundry, and cleaned the floors; I’ve done all the work you don’t like to do. I’m hardworking and honest (except for breaking into your house). Not only must you let me stay, you must also add me to your insurance plan, educate my kids, and provide these benefits to my husband, too (he will do your yardwork, he’s honest and hardworking too–except for that breaking in part). If you try to force me out, I will call my friends who will picket your house and proclaim my right to be there! It’s only fair, because you have a nicer house than I do, and I’m trying to better myself. I’m hardworking and honest…except for, well, you know. I will live in your house, contributing only a fraction of the cost of my keep, and there is nothing you can do about it without being accused of selfishness and prejudice.

Oh yeah, I want you to learn my language so you can communicate with me.

Good plan..don’t you think?

Is this a behavior we should be rewarding?

What makes the current influx of illegal immigrants exempt from the rules and regulations that every other generation of immigrants to this country had to abide by in order to become legal citizens of the greatest nation in the world? By being here illegally, they are not entitled to the same rights as natural-born or naturalized American citizens.

And, yet, even as I write this, they are in our hospitals, taking advantage of our charity and the finest health care system in the world, and driving our streets, with either forged drivers licenses or those obtained from states who have acquiesced and given them to these “undocumented workers”.

This is in no way a human rights issue. Freedom is God-given, and with freedom comes responsibility. With citizenship comes responsibility, like paying taxes and making your own way.

My concerns about this whole “Path to Citizenship” business, can be divided into three bullet points. (Hey, I used to be a VP of Marketing. What do you expect?)

1. Patriotism – Will these new “citizens” be willing to fly our flag above theirs? Will they be willing, if called upon, to serve in our Armed Forces, at home or abroad? Will they love this country, more than the one they left?

2. Loyalty – When these “new Americans” achieve the right to vote, are they all going to vote Democrat, so that they can receive more FREE STUFF? Is the Republican Party shooting themselves in both feet by pushing an outcome which will simply add new Democratic Voters? As I asked in the first point, will they honestly embrace our sovereign nation as their new home? Or, will they remain loyal to Mexico?

3. Immigration – Are we rewarding illegal behavior, while at the same time, insulting all of the brave souls who have come here legally, seeking a better life for themselves and their families?

I understand that people want a better life for themselves and their children. We are all immigrants in this land, except for American Indians, and they got here by crossing the Bering Straight. But there is a huge difference between immigrating here legally and sneaking in illegally, between assimilating into an existing culture, and insisting on replacing a country’s existing culture with that of the country you left.

I’m all for assisting anyone in becoming a legal citizen of the United States, if that is their wish. But, it must be done the right way, and they must accept responsibility for their illegal entry, show a willingness to learn our language, and embrace our American way of life, including respecting the American Flag.

So, let’s take this one step at a time. Secure our borders. Enforce the anti-illegal immigration laws. And, if the Federal Government won’t, the states, like Arizona, will have to pass their own laws. America became a great nation because it is a melting pot of American-born and legally-immigrated citizens with a shared allegiance, not a multi-cultural United Nations with everyone loyal to their home country.

As the diseases, which the Mexican Munchkin Migration brought in with them have warned us, a wide-open Southern Border is as big a threat to the sovereignty of the United States as anything that our enemies can throw at us right now. All of OUR SERVANTS, up on Capitol Hill, need to quit playing political games. The safety of America is at stake . SECURE THE BORDER NOW.

In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person’s becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American…There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn’t an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag… We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language… and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people. – Theodore Roosevelt 1907

This past week has witnessed the ongoing Illegal Alien Invasion, occurring on our Southern Border, showing no signs of abating, despite the rhetoric and empty promises of United States President Barack Hussein Obama. In fact, word has come out that Obama and his Administration are considering flying illegal immigrants directly out of the country of Honduras, to our Sovereign Nation, basically cutting out the “Middle Man”, and, at the same time, bypassing normal Legal Immigration Procedure.

The President may be preparing to provide temporary legal status [which will , of course, lead to permanent legal status] to millions of undocumented immigrants

When President Obama issues executive orders on immigration in coming weeks, pro-reform activists are expecting something dramatic: temporary relief from deportation and work authorization for perhaps several million undocumented immigrants. If the activists are right, the sweeping move would upend a contentious policy fight and carry broad political consequences.

The activists met privately with the President and his aides June 30 at the White House, and say in that meeting Obama suggested he will act before the November midterm elections. They hope his decision will offer relief to a significant percentage of the estimated 11.7 million undocumented immigrants in the U.S. “He seems resolute that he’s going to go big and go soon,” says Frank Sharry, executive director of the pro-reform group America’s Voice.

Exactly what Obama plans to do is a closely held secret. But following the meeting with the activists, Obama declared his intention to use his executive authority to reform parts of a broken immigration system that has cleaved families and hobbled the economy. After being informed by Speaker John Boehner that the Republican-controlled House would not vote on a comprehensive overhaul of U.S. immigration law this year, the President announced in a fiery speech that he was preparing “to do what Congress refuses to do, and fix as much of our immigration system as we can.”

Obama has been cautious about preempting Congress. But its failure to act has changed his thinking. The recent meeting “was really the first time we had heard from the administration that they are looking at” expanding a program to provide temporary relief from deportations and work authorization for undocumented immigrants, says Marielena Hincapié, executive director of the National Immigration Law Center.

The White House won’t comment on how many undocumented immigrants could be affected. “I don’t want to put a number on it,” says a senior White House official, who says Obama’s timeline to act before the mid-term elections remains in place.

Obama has a broad menu of options at his disposal, but there are two major sets of changes he can order. The first is to provide affirmative relief from deportation to one or more groups of people. Under this mechanism, individuals identified as “low-priority” threats can come forward to seek temporary protection from deportation and work authorization. In 2012, the administration created a program, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), that allowed eligible young unauthorized immigrants to apply for a two-year reprieve from deportation and a work permit.

The most aggressive option in this category would be expanding deferred action to anyone who could have gained legal status under the bipartisan bill that passed the Senate in June 2013. According to a Congressional Budget Office analysis, the Senate bill would have covered up to 8 million undocumented immigrants. It is unlikely that Obama goes that far. But even more modest steps could provide relief to a population numbering in the seven figures. “You can get to big numbers very quickly,” says Marshall Fitz, director of immigration policy at the Center for American Progress, a progressive think tank.

One plausible option would be to expand DACA to include some family members of those already eligible. Says a Congressional aide: “While there are several options to provide temporary deportation relief, we expect an expansion of the DACA program to other groups of individuals to be the most clear opportunity.”

It’s hard to pin down how many people this would cover; it would depend on how the administration crafts the order. But the numbers are substantial. According to the CBO, there are an estimated 4.7 million undocumented parents with a minor child living in the U.S., and 3.8 million whose children are citizens. Around 1.5 million undocumented immigrants are married to a U.S. citizen or lawful resident, but have been unable to gain legal status themselves.

Obama could also decide to grant protections for specific employment categories, such as the 1 million or so undocumented immigrants working in the agricultural sector, or to ease the visa restrictions hindering the recruitment of high-skilled foreign workers to Silicon Valley. Either move would please centrist and conservative business lobbies, who have joined with the left to press for comprehensive reform, and might help temper the blowback.

The second bucket of changes Obama is considering are more modest enforcement reforms. Jeh Johnson, Obama’s Secretary of Homeland Security, is deep into a review of the administration’s enforcement practices, and it is likely Obama will order some changes to immigration enforcement priorities. But if these tweaks are the extent of the changes, it would be a blow to activists expecting more. “That’s crumbs off the table compared to the meal we’d be expecting,” says Sharry.

Why is Obama purposefully weakening our Sovereign Nation by intentionally bypassing our Immigration Laws? Is he bringing over learned people? No. Is he bringing over businessmen? No. Is he bringing over tradesmen? No. Is he bringing over craftsmen? No.

Is President Barack Hussein Obama bringing over any illegals, who will immediately be productive members of American Society?

No.

Then, there must be another explanation.

Vladimir Ilyich Lenin rose to power during a time of economic plight in Russia, which was perceived as being the result of a greedy upper class. In order to depose the Czar and his government, Lenin had to solidify the “have-nots”, the Mentsheviks and the Bolsheviks, into his own private army, designed to usher in his “Glorious Revolution”.

Today, in 2014, Obama, voted by the American People, the “Worst president Since World War II”, finds himself is a rapidly weakening position of power.

His popularity is swirling down the ol’ porcelain receptacle, and even his own party members are trying to distance themselves from him.

His only hope to retain his power base is to create, politically, his own”private army” of Democrat voters, composed of, as Mitt Romney called them, “the 47%” of Americans dependent on Uncle Sugar and these new illegal aliens, whom he has been whisking off, via governmental transport, to be dispersed throughout the country, where, within a couple of years, they will be old enough to vote.

By ginning up the dependent base already here…and growing…due to this new influx of illegals…to push Congress to support Obama in passing Amnesty, Obama is creating his own “Revolutionary Army” of potential Democrat Voters, to fulfill his promise of “rapidly changing” America as we know it.

Obama is intentionally bypassing the normal process of legal Immigration, including one very important part,, which all immigrants, who wish to be Americans must pledge:

I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.

A little over a month after I started Kingjester’s Blog, on May 18, 2010, a young man named Benito wrote me to me in the comments section. Benito, an activist for the cause of Illegal Immigration, insisted that the situation of people iin this country illegally, was once of “Civil Rights”. This is how I responded to him:

Benito, I approved your comment to ask you a few questions. First, you write very well. Next, a few questions. What part of the word “illegal” do you not understand? What makes the current influx of illegal immigrants exempt from the rules and regulations that every other generation of immigrants to this country had to abide by in order to become legal citizens of the greatest nation in the world? By being here illegally, you are not entitled to the same rights as natural-born or naturalized American citizens. You are no better than someone who breaks into someone’s home, does their dishes, cuts their yard, cleans their house, and then helps themselves to their food and drives their car without asking. This is in no way a human rights issue. Freedom is God-given. And with freedom comes responsibility. With citizenship comes responsibility, like paying taxes and making your own way. Illegal immigration reminds me of the amorous boyfriend who wants everything a young woman will give him, but will leave her at the first mention of marriage. I wish you no ill, amigo, but understand this: This is not a civil rights issue. Illegals do not have the same rights as American Citizens. With our rights, come the responsibilities of being an American citizen. The Mexican flag, by protocol, will always be flown in a subordinate position to the American Flag in this country. And, the American Dialect of the English language is the language spoken in this country.

Vaya con Dios.

Obama’s actions will have detrimental consequences for average Americans and our Sovereign Nation.

The last bipartisan U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform wrangled with this hot topic for six years. President Clinton appointed former congresswoman and Democratic icon Barbara Jordan as its chair. Jordan came from humble beginnings to become a lawyer and the first Southern black woman elected to the House of Representatives. A DEMOCRAT, she was a leader in the civil rights movement, a professor of ethics, a recipient of the Presidential Medal of Freedom, and a world-class orator (two of her speeches are considered among the greatest of the 20th century). Her appointment gave the commission instant credibility. According to Jordan, she believed her responsibility as the head of the commission was to restore credibility to the U.S. immigration system. On the issue of illegal immigration, Jordan was very clear and succinct:

Unlawful immigration is unacceptable. Those who should not be here will be required to leave.

I wonder what Rep. Jordan would think of her beloved Democratic Party, now that they have embraced and are welcoming the same illegality, which she was so clear about ?

President Obama, tired of waiting for Congress to act on immigration reform, is currently exploring ways to address issues with Department of Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson.

During an interview with MSNBC’s Chuck Todd, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest explained that the Obama administration was getting impatient with Congress.

“[W]e’re not just going to sit around and wait interminably for Congress,” he explained. “We’ve been waiting a year already. The president has tasked his Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson with reviewing what options are available to the president, what is at his disposal using his executive authority to try to address some of the problems that have been created by our broken immigration system.”

Earnest added that, although Obama was exploring executive action, it was “not a substitute for robust Congressional action” on immigration reform.

“That’s why we’re trying to focus on getting that done,” he concluded.

Obama has been heavily criticized after his 2012 executive decision to defer the deportations of some young illegal immigrants, which critics argue was a key incentive for more children to cross the border illegally.

And, where the fallen messiah goes, his acolytes must follow (especially if there will be cameras involved).

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi will travel to the southern border of the U.S. on Saturday to be briefed by Customs and Border Protection on the flood of unaccompanied minors entering the country.

The California Democrat will also meet with a group of children held at the South Texas Detention Facility.

“The humanitarian crisis unfolding across our nation’s southern border demands Congress come together and find thoughtful, compassionate and bipartisan solutions,” Pelosi said. “We must ensure our laws are fully enforced, so that due process is provided to unaccompanied children and the safety and well-being of unaccompanied children is protected. We must also work to address the root causes of the problem.

More than 50,000 unaccompanied children from central America have crossed the border into the United States since last October, but federal law says the U.S. cannot immediately turn the minors away if they are from non-contiguous countries such as Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala.

The rush of children has turned into a crisis for Customs and Border Protection, which does not have the capacity to house the children for the 72 hours before they are transferred to the Department of Health and Human Services to await an immigration hearing.

Pelosi will be joined by Democratic Reps. Filemon Vela of Texas, Rubén E. Hinojosa of Texas and Steven Horsford of Nevada. Hinojosa is the chairman of the Chairman, Congressional Hispanic Caucus and Vela sits on the House Homeland Security Committee.

The sight of San Fran Nan, greeting them at the Border, may make all the illegals turn tail and run back home.

When she was young, they fed her with a slingshot.

But, I digress…

What makes the current influx of illegal immigrants exempt from the rules and regulations that every other generation of immigrants to this country had to abide by in order to become legal citizens of the greatest nation in the world? By being here illegally, they are not entitled to the same rights as natural-born or naturalized American citizens.

And, yet, even as I write this, they are in our hospitals, taking advantage of our charity and the finest health care system in the world, and driving our streets, with either forged drivers licenses or those obtained from states who have acquiesced and given them to these “undocumented workers”.

This is in no way a human rights issue. Freedom is God-given, and with freedom comes responsibility. With citizenship comes responsibility, like paying taxes and making your own way.

My concerns about this whole “Path to Citizenship” business, can be divided into three bullet points. (Hey, I’m a VP of Marketing. What do you expect?)

1. Patriotism – Will these new “citizens” be willing to fly our flag above theirs? Will they be willing, if called upon, to serve in our Armed Forces, at home or abroad? Will they love this country, more than the one they left?

2. Loyalty – When these “new Americans” achieve the right to vote, are they all going to vote Democrat, so that they can receive more FREE STUFF? Is the Republican Party shooting themselves in both feet by pushing an outcome which will simply add new Democratic Voters? As I asked in the first point, will they honestly embrace our sovereign nation as their new home? Or, will they remain loyal to Mexico?

3. Immigration – Are we rewarding illegal behavior, while at the same time, insulting all of the brave souls who have come here legally, seeking a better life for themselves and their families?

I understand that people want a better life for themselves and their children. We are all immigrants in this land, except for American Indians, and they got here by crossing the Bering Straight. But there is a huge difference between immigrating here legally and sneaking in illegally, between assimilating into an existing culture, and insisting on replacing a country’s existing culture with that of the country you left.

I’m all for assisting anyone in becoming a legal citizen of the United States, if that is their wish. But, it must be done the right way, and they must accept responsibility for their illegal entry, show a willingness to learn our language, and embrace our American way of life, including respecting the American Flag.

So, let’s take this one step at a time. Secure our borders. Enforce the anti-illegal immigration laws. And if the Federal Government won’t, the states, like Arizona, will have to pass their own laws. America became a great nation because it is a melting pot of American-born and legally immigrated citizens with a shared allegiance, not a multi-cultural United Nations with everyone loyal to their home country.

A wide-open Southern Border is as big a threat to the sovereignty of the United States as anything that our enemies can throw at us right now. All of OUR SERVANTS, up on Capitol HIll, need to quit playing political games. The safety of America is at stake . SECURE THE BORDER NOW.

Oh, and if John Boehner and the Vichy Republicans think that being pro-Amnesty will win the presidency for them, I have two words for them: